| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nick" |
| Date: |
24 Mar 2005 01:18:31 AM |
| Object: |
Light in an Infinite Universe |
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole. There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
That is the Redshift Paradox.
The universe is finite; only the future is infinite!!!
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Reckoning" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 07:28:44 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111648711.410899.312300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole. There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
That is the Redshift Paradox.
The universe is finite; only the future is infinite!!!
In this case what is the difference between infinite and unknown?
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Capizzi" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 08:03:55 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111648711.410899.312300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole. There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
What's your problem? Where does it say that there has to be a whole
wavelength of anything? Haven't you ever heard of fractions?
That is the Redshift Paradox.
The universe is finite; only the future is infinite!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 01:33:01 PM |
|
|
Moron. There is no such thing as a partial light wave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 01:48:04 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Moron. There is no such thing as a partial light wave.
Really?! And you know this how?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 03:02:47 PM |
|
|
I know its nonsense.
How do I know?
I can see it for myself Moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 05:01:38 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
I know its nonsense.
How do I know?
I can see it for myself Moron.
Really?! You can see a light wave? What does it look like?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 05:27:54 PM |
|
|
Like a wave!!!
I can see it for myself .
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
25 Mar 2005 07:45:34 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Like a wave!!!
I can see it for myself .
Really!? How extraordinary!
You know that visible light has a wavelength of order 0.5 micron,
right? In contrast, the thickness of a human hair is 70 microns.
Wait, you must be talking about microwaves. You can see microwaves??
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
25 Mar 2005 08:14:17 AM |
|
|
In article <1111758334.261435.219470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
PD <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote:
Really!? How extraordinary!
You know that visible light has a wavelength of order 0.5 micron,
right? In contrast, the thickness of a human hair is 70 microns.
About anything.
Wait, you must be talking about microwaves. You can see microwaves??
You are a fart.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Chatterly isn't mine. But you already knew that if you did any
googling at all." -- DocQuixote
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 01:57:35 PM |
|
|
Light works the sam in an infinite universe as in a finite one. Its
energy goes to infinity,and the photon sees spacetime as zero. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 02:19:38 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111648711.410899.312300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
That is the Redshift Paradox.
The universe is finite; only the future is infinite!!!
Spewing words doesn't make it come true. Try empirical evidence, not
syllables falling out of your face.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 10:29:01 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole.
[snip crap]
Hey idiot, do you have a physics "Mad-Lib Workbook for Teens?"
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 04:25:28 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole.
An infinite universe incinerates all of space-time, since there would
be infinitely bright light arriving at every point in space-time.
There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
That is the Redshift Paradox.
The universe is finite; only the future is infinite!!!
All wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 08:59:21 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole. There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
Did you know that in most organ pipes, only a quarter of a standing
wave fits in the pipe?
That is the Redshift Paradox.
The universe is finite; only the future is infinite!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 11:26:50 AM |
|
|
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1111676361.928923.231150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Nick wrote:
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole. There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
Did you know that in most organ pipes, only a quarter of a standing
wave fits in the pipe?
He is not interested.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 01:47:16 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole. There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
Did you know that in most organ pipes, only a quarter of a standing
wave fits in the pipe?
Where then is the rest of the wave?
That is the Redshift Paradox.
The universe is finite; only the future is infinite!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 01:55:30 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole. There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
Did you know that in most organ pipes, only a quarter of a standing
wave fits in the pipe?
Where then is the rest of the wave?
It's NOT THERE! Nor does it have to be. You are under the mistaken
impression that waves only come in whole number multiples of
wavelengths. I have no idea where you got that notion.
PD
That is the Redshift Paradox.
The universe is finite; only the future is infinite!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 02:19:11 PM |
|
|
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1111694130.635919.277750
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Nick wrote:
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole. There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
Did you know that in most organ pipes, only a quarter of a standing
wave fits in the pipe?
Where then is the rest of the wave?
It's NOT THERE! Nor does it have to be. You are under the mistaken
impression that waves only come in whole number multiples of
wavelengths. I have no idea where you got that notion.
more like half wave multiples.
how do you make half a photon?
You can have things that resonate at a frequency that is lower than their
length. Many resonant structures are 1/4 wavelength, but they are usually
just half of the actual resonant structure. For a 1/4 wave antenna, the
earth or ground plane serves as the other half of the antenna. For a 1/4
wave organ pipe [closed at the bottom end, as opposed to a 1/2 wave organ
pipe that is open at the bottom end], the reflection of the pressure wave
from the bottom end makes the other 1/4 wave.
Hmmmm can a structure support a vibration that is much larger than the
structure.
I don't think you can generate a wave on water that is much larger than the
container that the water is in.
I don't think you can excite a drum head to vibrate at a frequency lower
than the 1/2 wave diameter of the drum.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 03:08:21 PM |
|
|
bz wrote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1111694130.635919.277750
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Nick wrote:
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole. There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
Did you know that in most organ pipes, only a quarter of a
standing
wave fits in the pipe?
Where then is the rest of the wave?
It's NOT THERE! Nor does it have to be. You are under the mistaken
impression that waves only come in whole number multiples of
wavelengths. I have no idea where you got that notion.
more like half wave multiples.
how do you make half a photon?
Photons are quantized by their energy, not by their length.
You can have things that resonate at a frequency that is lower than
their
length. Many resonant structures are 1/4 wavelength, but they are
usually
just half of the actual resonant structure. For a 1/4 wave antenna,
the
earth or ground plane serves as the other half of the antenna. For a
1/4
wave organ pipe [closed at the bottom end, as opposed to a 1/2 wave
organ
pipe that is open at the bottom end], the reflection of the pressure
wave
from the bottom end makes the other 1/4 wave.
The *standing* wave's wavelength is four times longer than the pipe
it's in. The traveling wave has the same wavelength, but it bounces
back and forth between the ends of the pipe, as you said.
Hmmmm can a structure support a vibration that is much larger than
the
structure.
I don't think you can generate a wave on water that is much larger
than the
container that the water is in.
I don't think you can excite a drum head to vibrate at a frequency
lower
than the 1/2 wave diameter of the drum.
Note in all the cases that you mention, you are talking about a
standing wave oscillation (which is constrained by the boundary
conditions). However, there is no such restriction on the wavelength of
a traveling wave. That is, can a pulse of wavelength much longer that
the physical dimension of the medium be carried by the medium? Of
course.
The OP's original argument, included in innumerable threads, is one of
logical inference.
1. Assume gravity can be arbitrarily large.
2. Therefore red-shifting can be arbitrarily great.
3. Therefore a wavelength can be arbitrarily large.
4. A finite universe cannot support light of arbitrarily large
wavelength.
Therefore, reducto absurdum, premise (1) must be false.
(Never mind that he incorrectly assumes that black holes are instances
of infinitely large gravity. He assumes that proving that gravity is
finite will disprove GR.)
I'm simply pointing out each of the several misconceptions that
underlie his arguments.
PD
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know
is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 02:58:50 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole. There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
Did you know that in most organ pipes, only a quarter of a
standing
wave fits in the pipe?
Where then is the rest of the wave?
It's NOT THERE! Nor does it have to be.
Then how do you know its wavelength?
Idiot.
If its not there it only means the vibrating pipe creates
a wave larger than the pipe in the surrounding air.
You can't get by me PD
You are under the mistaken
impression that waves only come in whole number multiples of
wavelengths. I have no idea where you got that notion.
PD
That is the Redshift Paradox.
The universe is finite; only the future is infinite!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 03:07:57 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1111697930.650537.133470@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole. There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
Did you know that in most organ pipes, only a quarter of a
standing
wave fits in the pipe?
Where then is the rest of the wave?
It's NOT THERE! Nor does it have to be.
Then how do you know its wavelength?
By dividing the speed by the frequency.
Both speed and frequency are strictly local and
measurable. This can be used as an operational
definition of wavelength.
The "light wave between here and there", is not
a physical object. It is an abstract concept.
It does not have to fit anywhere. Radiowaves
don't fit onto the antenna of your receiver.
Idiot.
If its not there it only means the vibrating pipe creates
a wave larger than the pipe in the surrounding air.
You can't get by me PD
You can't get by yourself.
You are highly autistic.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 03:19:49 PM |
|
|
Dirk Wrote:
The "light wave between here and there", is not
a physical object. It is an abstract concept.
Mitch Wrote:
And you're a nut. What are we measuring when we measure
lights wavelength if it is not a physical object?
Idiot Supreme.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 03:51:29 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1111699189.225016.222660@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Wrote:
The "light wave between here and there", is not
a physical object. It is an abstract concept.
Mitch Wrote:
And you're a nut. What are we measuring when we measure
lights wavelength if it is not a physical object?
| "By dividing the speed by the frequency.
| Both speed and frequency are strictly local and
| measurable. This can be used as an operational
| definition of wavelength.
| The "light wave between here and there", is not
| a physical object. It is an abstract concept.
| It does not have to fit anywhere. Radiowaves
| don't fit onto the antenna of your receiver."
This is a definition This is not open for debate.
You are not only autistic.
You are blind, stupid, dumb and malicious as well.
Idiot Supreme.
That is your signature alright.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 04:15:46 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111699189.225016.222660@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Wrote:
The "light wave between here and there", is not
a physical object. It is an abstract concept.
Mitch Wrote:
And you're a nut. What are we measuring when we measure
lights wavelength if it is not a physical object?
| "By dividing the speed by the frequency.
| Both speed and frequency are strictly local and
| measurable. This can be used as an operational
| definition of wavelength.
| The "light wave between here and there", is not
| a physical object. It is an abstract concept.
| It does not have to fit anywhere. Radiowaves
| don't fit onto the antenna of your receiver."
This is a definition This is not open for debate.
Your definition is not final. Light's wavelength is a measurable
physical quantity.
You are not only autistic.
You are blind, stupid, dumb and malicious as well.
Idiot Supreme.
That is your signature alright.
Dirk Vdm
What are we measuring when we measure light's wavelength, irk,
if it doesn't even exist? And what about wave interference Moron?
It's all in irk's mind is it?
And if light's wavelength is bigger than the universe
where will it fit?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
25 Mar 2005 06:14:38 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1111702546.131459.80380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111699189.225016.222660@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Wrote:
The "light wave between here and there", is not
a physical object. It is an abstract concept.
Mitch Wrote:
And you're a nut. What are we measuring when we measure
lights wavelength if it is not a physical object?
| "By dividing the speed by the frequency.
| Both speed and frequency are strictly local and
| measurable. This can be used as an operational
| definition of wavelength.
| The "light wave between here and there", is not
| a physical object. It is an abstract concept.
| It does not have to fit anywhere. Radiowaves
| don't fit onto the antenna of your receiver."
This is a definition This is not open for debate.
Your definition is not final. Light's wavelength is a measurable
physical quantity.
You are not only autistic.
You are blind, stupid, dumb and malicious as well.
Idiot Supreme.
That is your signature alright.
Dirk Vdm
What are we measuring when we measure light's wavelength, irk,
if it doesn't even exist? And what about wave interference Moron?
It's all in irk's mind is it?
And if light's wavelength is bigger than the universe
where will it fit?
In the infinite void of you skull.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 04:35:27 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole. There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
Did you know that in most organ pipes, only a quarter of a
standing
wave fits in the pipe?
Where then is the rest of the wave?
It's NOT THERE! Nor does it have to be.
Then how do you know its wavelength?
Idiot.
You made me laugh! Thank you very much!
But seriously...
In a standing wave pattern, a single wavelength will be exhibit two
nodes and two antinodes. For example, in a full-wavelength pipe with
closed ends, the pattern will be N A N A N.
The distance between nodes and antinodes is 1/4 of a wavelength.
In a quarter-wave pipe, there is a node at one end and an antinode at
the other end of the pipe. That's 1/4 of a wavelength and easily
recognized.
If its not there it only means the vibrating pipe creates
a wave larger than the pipe in the surrounding air.
Not so. The standing wave is only inside the pipe. I can do the same
thing with a jumprope, by the way. So how would, say, a half-wave in a
jumprope make the other half-wave beyond the ends of the rope?
You can't get by me PD
Not trying to get by you, Nick. Trying to keep you from falling off
your bike into a ditch.
PD
You are under the mistaken
impression that waves only come in whole number multiples of
wavelengths. I have no idea where you got that notion.
PD
That is the Redshift Paradox.
The universe is finite; only the future is infinite!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
24 Mar 2005 04:57:00 PM |
|
|
I see PD.
But there are no independent fractions of a light wave.
That doesn't make sense.
Anyway how do you know the wavelength if the standing
wave isnt whole? How do you define a wave fraction
in other words PD?
As if I don't know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Light in an Infinite Universe |
25 Mar 2005 07:39:31 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
I see PD.
But there are no independent fractions of a light wave.
That doesn't make sense.
I don't know what you mean by "independent fractions of a light wave",
nor why it should not make sense. If it makes sense for a jumprope or a
sound wave, why should it not make sense for a light wave? Or do you
think that light is a somehow different sort of wave?
Anyway how do you know the wavelength if the standing
wave isnt whole? How do you define a wave fraction
in other words PD?
As if I don't know.
As if you don't know, there's a simple way to measure the vibration of
air in a tube -- it's often called (I kid you not) a Kundt's tube.
Basically, it has sand in it, and sand dunes form where there is a node
in the tube and not where there is an antinode. So it is experimentally
verifiable that in a quarter-wave tube, there is only a node and an
antinode in the tube, and those are spaced a 1/4 wavelength apart.
Moreover, this experimental measurement can be verified by applying a
frequency counter to the tube to determine the frequency of vibration.
It is a quick check using v=(freq)(wvlngth) and using the speed of
sound in air, that the wavelength obtained from this expression is
completely consistent with four times the length of the tube.
This, by the way, is often performed in a freshman physics lab for the
benefit of students who don't believe that a quarter of a wave can live
in a pipe.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
